Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, good evening everyone. I'd like to welcome you all to the February 11th, 2026 meeting of the Brentwood Planning and Zoning Commission. If you could please join me in the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible.

Thank you. Uh, Mr. Moran, if you could please call the role. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hart Nelson here. Here. Jack Shelton here. Jeff Moore here. Matt Foreman here. Carl Carlin here. Brian Nolan here. Lisa Shering here. Maravaza here. Jeff Hunt. No. John Nerburg. No. Sherry. Right. We have a quorum, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Moran. Next item of business is the approval of the agenda. The agenda has been distributed. Are there any amendments or changes that need to be made to the agenda? If not, any objection to approval by acclamation? Uh, seeing none, the agenda stands approved. Uh, next item of business is approval of the minutes from our January 14th, 2026 meeting. Those minutes have been distributed. Are there any changes or adjustments that need to be made to the minutes? Any objection to approval by acclamation? Seeing none, the minutes from January 14th are approved. Next item of business are citizen comments. These are for citizens wishing to address the commission on items not on the agenda this evening. Do we have anyone wishing to address the commission on items not on the agenda? Anyone online? All right. Next item of business is old business. This is u public hearing on the adoption of the commercial design guidelines. Mr. Brian, are you here? Thank you.

Yes, sir. Bear with me just a moment while this thing gets started up. Sorry, I have a little bit of technical difficulties with this thing. Help is on the way. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you everyone. I'm

sorry for the momentary delay there while that started up. Um, so this is um the presentation of the final uh revised draft commercial design guidelines. Um, since I know you all have seen this two or three or four or five times so far, I just want to go through kind of a brief overview really highlighting um the uh changes that have been made over the last several months um since our kind of last round of uh community and uh elected official and appointed official engagement uh starting in November of last year. So again, just as a reminder, um if uh if adopted, these uh commercial guidelines would apply to the the GC, um RSC, uh UD, PD, and LIID, uh zoning districts. Um these are largely modeled on the uh design guidelines that are currently part of the MC Manchester corridor district. um just with some applicable uh updates and revisions to these new districts. And um one of the one of the things as well in addition to the guidelines themselves um the the document that's um up for adoption as part of as an addendum to the comp plan does include recommendations for updates to uh Brentwood's zoning code in the commercial districts. Of course, those zoning code updates would not go into effect with adoption of this as an amendment to the comp plan. But one of the uh major objectives of the of the zoning code updates is to address some issues related to uh building sighting um and parking requirements uh particularly on small lots and particularly along Brentwood Boulevard.

These are three examples of properties that have largely been rendered um unimprovable uh because of the requirements to uh uh uh comply with the zoning codes uh current parking recommendations. Um and so we are uh have made recommendations to help overcome that issue which I'll get to in a moment. So um contents and organization we start off with purpose and administration. Again, this explains the applicability uh the planning and zoning commission review. We have added language for op optional architectural review board review should the city wish to put commercial property commercial developments into the purview of the ARB. Um and then also conditions uh for administrative review that are similar to what you all adopted as part of um the residential uh design guidelines last year. Um then the the design the design guidelines go through a variety of topics related to building design that includes materials. Um I will point out one change that was made based on feedback from this uh board was um moving face sealed exterior insulated facade system assemblies um from prohibited minor materials to permitted minor materials. So you see see that highlighted there in magenta. Um then sections on building details, design features and structures, building entrances, some examples of good uh practices in Brentwood today of incorporating those features. Facade articulation, building roof line. Again, some examples of those um bicycle and pedestrian access uh guidelines, guidelines for windows and doors. Um the door section is another section that was updated uh based on

feedback from our public openhouse. Um and it basically states that um while commercial storefronts um are required to have clear glass doors um it states that other or I'm sorry retail storefronts I should say um other commercial storefronts including offices, service businesses and eating and dining establishments um can also use uh solid doors of wood or metal um of a design that's complimentary to the building uh and approved by uh the planning and zoning commission. So allows for some additional flexibility in in non uh retail storefronts and again some examples of good uh window and door design on existing projects. Um and then uh signage uh guidelines. Uh, one addition here again from uh, feedback we received at the public openhouse was to uh, prohibit uh, billboards um, within the RSC uh, GC, PD and LI districts. Uh, and this basically brings those districts in in conformance to the prohibition of billboards in the uh, Manchester Corridor MC district. Um, again some examples good examples of signage and how it can be integrated into building design. Uh then the third section section C deals with site design. So guidelines for outdoor seating uh provision of uh plazas and large patio areas, wayfinding signage and features and public art and some examples of uh of site design. Again, although we've talked about this in the past, I will draw your attention to uh the image on the right which um is storefronts along Clayton Road in Clayton. And that is a uh from back of sidewalk to front of facade is a 20 foot setback. So keep that in mind when we get to the um the zoning update recommendations.

Uh then uh continuing on with site design uh recommendations for building placement. Um again this this section was updated. Um there was language that was removed from the third bullet point um to basically allow for some additional flexibility. So it now states that buildings on corner lot should include a prominent architectural feature or emphasis at the corner. Uh previously it's it stated a greater height than the rest of the roof but that was felt to be too uh restrictive in terms of uh prescribing design solutions. So that was removed. Uh guidelines on utility service uh screening of building service areas. Again, some examples in this case of uh corner features on buildings in Brentwood. Um and then uh guidelines on landscaping, which the full guidelines include um uh permitted tree species uh based on uh what is in in other portions of the city's uh code of ordinances, requirements for a front landscape zone. Um, and here you can see examples of uh on the left really no front landscaping to speak of versus on the right um a front landscape zone on a new on a new project. And then finally um lighting and this section was also uh was also revised. Um there was some sort of contradictory confusing language about required color temperature for LED bulbs um on site lighting and so that was removed. Uh they are basically now limited at uh to 3,000 degrees Kelvin. Um it's really kind of unclear why that 4,800 was put in there because it was really very contradictory, but um but that was removed to make that more clear. Um and then finally uh the the final section section D dealing with parking

and access. So um this talks about requirements for traffic study. Um it looks at guidelines to uh minimize uh access driveways um as they interrupt uh the sidewalk on the building frontage. Um guidelines for internal circulation driveways. Uh separated cross access for vehicles and pedestrians. vehicular cross access between parcels, pedestrian cross access between parcels and uh in internal circulation driveways uh for loading and service. Uh finally a quick summary of the recommended zoning code amendments. So um the the the main principle behind this and we actually provide two uh approaches to achieve this is to standardize the front side and rear setback requirements across all of the commercial zoning districts. [snorts] And we are recommending that as part of future zoning code amendments that um for uh lots with frontages on uh Brentwood Boulevard and Hanley Road that the minimum front yard the current minimum front yard setback would be replaced with a front yard build to line of 20 feet. And on uh Manchester Road, the the uh existing minimum front set setback would be replaced with a front yard build to line of either 20 ft or 50 ft. Um and that parking could be located um in between the front of the building and uh Manchester Road for those 50 foot uh front setbacks. And then further when that 50- foot front setback is utilized on Manchester Road, there's would be a requirement to have a pedestrian sidewalk with a minimum width of 8 feet that's located directly in front of the build to line.

So essentially, you would have a secondary pedestrian uh zone right in front of the building uh to again uh uh promote cross access cross pedestrian access between parcels. and then an amendment of the side and rear yard minimum setbacks to 12 feet. So, we've gone through a variety of iterations of different lot sizes, but this is one sort of typical lot uh lot size configuration showing um how those uh how those recommended updates would impact the the buildable area of the site. Um, in effect, what you're doing is by reducing that front setback, you are providing um a greater uh buildable area, which will help to make some of those smaller parcels more easy to uh redevelop or improve. Um then some additional uh recommended uh zoning code amendments um updating the building bulk requirements um to uh a maximum height of 2 and 1/2 stories um with a minimum 12t rear yard setback. If that rear yard setback is increased to 50 feet, uh then the maximum building height could be increased to four stories. And if on larger lots if that um uh minimum rear yard setback was increased to 100 feet then uh the maximum building height would increase to six stories. And then we're also making a recommendation that um uh minimum parking requirements could be waved uh for all lots with a depth of less than 165 ft subject to a parking and access study and parking plan approved by the planning and zoning commission. And then finally, uh, last time we did talk about, um, a a potential recommendation of amending the light industrial district, um, to include, um, all of the permitted

uses, uh, in the MR, RSC, and GC commercial districts as well as motel and hotels. Um upon further uh discussion and input from city staff, um we are no longer recommending that that be included as uh as a recommended zoning code update. Uh but rather that diversification of uses within the light industrial district moving forward would be handled on a case- by case basis via reszoning or uh implementation of the planned development overlay. So that concludes my presentation and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, Mr. Brand. Uh any questions for members of the commission. Appreciate the uh presentation and especially the clarifications on what's been changed. So that's this is a public uh hearing as well. Are there any members of the public that wish to address the commission on this item? There also been other public hearings as well, but since it is a public meeting, thought we would make that opportunity available. Seeing none, u next item of business and I believe would be a motion uh to approve this. This would be a resolution from the commission. Uh and that's something we don't do very often, I guess, is have a resolution from us. Uh is there a motion resolution? Sorry. Please.

Just to clarify, we do have people that join via Zoom. So, I don't know if we asked if anyone on Zoom wished to discuss this, make a comment on this item. Thank you, Miss Kelly. Uh, anyone joining the meeting virtually wishes to address the commission on the commercial design plan or guidelines, excuse me. Hearing none. All right. Uh, is there a motion on the floor?

Mr. Chair, there's a twopage resolution in the documents. [clears throat] Typically, staff report says there's a there's a motion. Is the resol is the resolution motion to adopt as written? I believe that could be the motion. More I would Yes, I would be happy to put forward the resolution as noted in the attachments. We have a motion for Mr. Foreman. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Carlin, I think a actually we'll do a roll call vote on this. I think a voice vote may be enough for resolution, but we'll do roll call if you wouldn't mind. Mr. Moran, yes, certainly. Uh, Mr. Chairman, Jack Shelton, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Matt Fman, yes. Brian Carlin, sorry, Cole Carlin.

Yes. Brian Nolan, yes. Lisa Shering, yes. Marker, yes. Paul Moran, yeah. Unanimous, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Moran. We don't do those very often. Um, so that will move forward uh with resolution, which I guess we'll sign this evening. Thank you. Uh, next item of business. This is new business. This is case 2601, comprehensive sign plan for an amendment for veterinary emergency group ER for pets at 211, excuse me. Yeah. 21101 South Brownwood Boulevard. The applicant has requested to postpone this to the March meeting. Uh, is there a motion to to table this until the next meeting? [snorts] So moved. Moved by Mr. Carlin. Is there a second? Second.

A second by Mr. Moran. Voice vote I think is good for this. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. Same sign. That will be tabled until March. Uh, next item of business is case 2602. This is the site development plan for Kandiva drug delivery chiller equipment sound enclosure at 2555 Herlan Drive. Is the applicant or their representative here this evening? I am here. All right. Excellent. If you could state your name, your address just for the record and tell us a little bit about uh your application this evening.

Sure. My name is Dennis Johnson. I am with Kanddeva Drug Delivery 2555 Hermalan uh here in the beautiful city of Brentwood. Uh we are um proposing um a sound attinuation barrier for our 300 ton chiller. Um I have representative from CRB with me uh kind of explain all the details. We have challenged them to give us 49.9 DPA at our property line and um and they feel like they're up to the task. So they have designed a great uh sound attenuation barrier and I'm looking forward to getting that installed. Great.

All right. Thank you'd like to have the representative just briefly explained it. We obviously have the information as well and then we'll go to staff report.

Hello. My name is Craig Busher. I'm a mechanical professional engineer with CRB engineering and I've been working on this project for a little while now. Uh we have retained an acoustical consultant to help us design the wall to achieve the 49.9 dB at the property line as indicated in the design criteria. U the chiller currently sits on an elevated platform. Our plan is to build three sides of that platform. a uh sound wall using sound attenuation panels. Uh the exterior of the sound attenuation panels are painted steel. It looks like a a steel uh insulated panel. It's sandwiched with uh insulation and they are designed to uh knock down with an STC class to knock down the sound accordingly. Above the above the uh platform, we will build the the wall will be about 15t tall. So it' be tall enough to enclose the sound around the unit. And then below the platform, we plan on hanging sound blankets. So because uh the chiller is in a flood plane, we cannot uh do new foundations. So we were going to be hanging sound panels blankets off of the uh chiller platform. Thus to enclose all the sound coming out of the bottom of the chiller and as well on the sides.

Thank you, Mr. Yeah, our sound uh uh [clears throat] our sound expert is taking uh 3D sound measurements around the site and is modeling it with the computer to uh make sure that we achieve the goals of the design.

Thank you, Mr. Busher. Um we'll go to staff report. If we have more questions from the commissioner members, we'll ask you to step back up, but rather than have you stand there while we get staff report, Miss Kelly, please. Um, as this gets going, I'll just uh discuss, as the applicant has indicated, this is to address a longstanding sound uh violation of the chillers. Um, they were installed in 2015. Um, and in recent years, the tillers seem to have been at that time, their report indicated they would operate within the city's regulations. However, they've been operating outside of that. So, they are here to hopefully address that. Um, it is the chillers were placed within the flood way, but they were elevated four feet above the base flood elevation. So, we are still working with FEMA on that regulation, but we wanted to move this forward to get your input and approval. Um, So, as you can see here,

it's not up on screen, Miss Kelly.

So, as you can see here, this is the chiller platform at the very right. Um, and it would extend 15 feet as it is in the flood way. The curtain would extend below. Um, and ultimately that we're still working on FEMA on that portion of it. rail require as part of any building permit a flood plane permit and an engineer norise with hydraulic information provided. Um so the material because the light industrial district does indicate the use of metal. Um however given this unique situation and it is meant to it does say that you can have rooftop equipment that to use this as a sound barrier and this is essentially creating that sound barrier. We feel that that is consistent with this. The use of the material is consistent with the design requirements of the zoning district. So it will be very tight in with the existing chiller. You can see that here. This is the rendering. Um, and the goal of, as the applicant has indicated, is that the equipment would then buffer the sound to be less than 49 dB to comply with the city's zoning reg sound barrier sound noise abatement. Sorry. Um, and then have any other questions? Miss Kelly, uh modeling is very good and they're getting better and better at it, but obviously want to make sure that once this is completed that it does what it was intended to do. Is the city or the uh land owner um going to then test again? How will that be insured?

Yes, we can we'll require that it be tested again and we can actually amend the draft conclusion if you wish to include that it be tested to ensure compliance with the zoning. I think it's requirement of city ordinances already to not violate it. May that may be belt and suspenders, but just wanted to make sure that that is part of it as well since testing is is again simulation helps quite a bit, but we want to make sure it is in fact since it's been a long-standing issue. It sounds like uh other questions for members of the commission. Mr. Foreman, you knew I was going to ask. I'm happy for you to

for our our engineer and attendance. I know you're not Burns and McDonald, but so on the section in the diagram, you're showing about a 7 foot tall cooling tower chiller unit. It looks like you've got about 3 foot6 from the top of that unit to the top of the screen. Is that enough for the flanking noise to get over the top of this thing? That's correct. That's the recommendation of our acoustical consultant.

Okay. So that's because it's as chiller by others. So I wasn't sure if the dimensions were accurate. Um so then I would back to your point if it measures. I'm always suspicious when the goal is 49 and the model shows 49. Not a lot of margin for error. And that is from the their property line. Basically it's 49 at the edge of their property line. The code requires that in the evening hours it be less and if you're the sound is more than 60 minutes that it be less than 50 dB. Um during the daytime hours it's at 55. And so the applicant has indicated they the goal is to go 49 at all times.

The reporter is showing there's no one's standing in the creek worried about the noise. There's park one, park two, and residential one that are coming in at 49. Residential 46 because we're getting de extra distance. If it comes back, [clears throat and cough] is it if it comes back high? I know we got air flow out of the top of the unit. Is it still possible to extend the wall taller to get more attenuation? That would would be possible to modify it after the fact if it needed to be.

Okay. And you answered the question about why you were using the blankets instead of so you didn't you couldn't go horizontal. Would that interrupt the air flow too much to go horizontal under the units? Uh yeah, partially uh air flow and then partially it's uh just the complexity of all the conduit and piping and access to the equipment underneath. Simpler to go straight down and actually it's a better envelope coverage as well. going to be a try it and see and the test very briefly. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Moore. Is there a benchmark? Do we know what the

I think. Yes, that was in one of the It's in the staff report at in October of 2023. The sound level of the plant running was measured at 71 dB and at 61 dB in April when they put up a temporary um structure to until they could engineer a full design. Um I thank you. It just gives me perspective.

Thank you, Mr. Moore. Any other questions from members of the commission? Any questions from members of the public here this evening? about this application. Anyone on Please, you need to come forward to the podium. Please state your name and address for the record.

Oh, thanks for uh entertaining our views here tonight. So, my name is Lauren Touro. Uh, I own with my wife the house at 24.99 Melvin Avenue, which I've owned since I think October 2001. Um, so somewhere along the line, the noise from the industrial park has gotten much louder. Um, did you say 2015 or 2016 was the children 15 when this children place?

So I believe they've been out of compliance for what is it 10 11 years now. That's a long time that our complaints um our neighbors, the Fisers, uh Ruth and Charles are here. Um Mr. Carlin, I don't know how many of you lived in your house, but he may be able to hear some of this noise from his backyard or his his house, his living room. I I can hear it from my front porch. Um Charles Fischer um enabled he had obtained a decibel meter from a friend that in an industrial environment that he worked with professionally and we took some measurements both from my front porch from the park from Oak Tree Park. Um the park is frequented by many people adults you know when you go to a park you don't expect to hear loud industrial noise. My point is this has been going on for a long time. We're very grateful that uh the industry that's there is now finally taking measures uh to fix this issue. One of my questions is what other industrial pollutants are they putting into our Brentwood environment that are going into that park? Are there chemicals? Is are there gases that are being emitted into the park where our children play at the playground? Out of curiosity, is there a list of maybe they are not outputting any chemicals whatsoever? I'd be glad to hear that. That would make me very happy. If in fact they are outputting chemicals, I know Mr. Nolan's children played with my children. Um, as does Matt Foreman's, you know, family. So I think that you know that for the city of warmth we want to be aware of what environmental pollutants including noise are affecting our homes, our children, our parks. Oak Tree Park is immediately across the creek from uh

this chiller and from this industry, this business. So I'm very thankful that they are taking steps 10 or 11 years later now. Um the the temporary baffles that I believe I don't know if that's an accurate description have helped. The noise has diminished. Um I had my my in-laws came over to my house and they were like, "What in the world is that noise? How can you live like this? What is going on?" And it's like you put a frog in a bowl of cold water on the stove and you slowly turn up the heat and you don't maybe the frog doesn't realize that it's being boiled to death, right? Um that's where we were a couple of years ago. This noise was just it was absolutely awful. Um our friend a neighbor John Miller who rate takes care of many different birds around St. Louis. Um you know he's he's also concerned about noise birds you know light pollution noise pollution any sort of environmental factor that um may not be necessary or welcome in the city of Redwood. So those are just a few thoughts that I have. My main question is, are there other pollutants besides the noise pollution that's been going on for 10 or more years that have being put into our environment by this company that is now finally 11 years later? Um, taking steps to reduce the noise that they've been putting into my front yard, into my house, uh, and affecting my children and my neighbors. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. I appreciate your the opportunity to speak tonight.

Yep. And I will say just simply, you know, planning and zoning commission is not an enforcement agency. We're not an enforcement part. Um those are issues that certainly can be taken up with the uh the city and should be if you have concerns, but it's beyond the scope of planning and zoning commission for those particular things. Uh here what we have in front of us is a is a site plan. And so that's what we're going to take action on. And I am glad I will say to what you said, very glad that this is being resolved. I do think 10 years is too long. Um but I'm glad that it is being resolved at this point rather than 10 years from now. And that is why I believe that the commission has been made clear. We'd like to make sure that this is tested once it's in place and that is in fact accomplishing what it's supposed to do. Any other members of the public wishing to address the commission this evening? Anyone online? Is there a motion from the commission? Yeah. I move to recommend approval of the site development plans for the chiller sound abatement modifications for kind of a true 555 Hermland subject to the concussions and discussion of this meeting.

Mr. Miranda, just to clarify, do the conditions include testing once the is completed? Uh yes, testing regularly. Yes. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Carlin. Roll call vote, please. Uh Jeff Shelton, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Matt Foreman, yes. Carlin, yes. Brandon, yes. Lisa Shearing, yes. Marco Vaza, yes. And Paul Miranda to universe, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Morant. This will be referred to the board of alderman uh in the date. What is the date? Um I forgot to look it up. March 2nd. The March 2nd. So, this recommendation will go forward to them on March 2nd. If not March 2nd, it would be March 16th.

Miss Kelly, we'll have all the details if you need to know for sure. Thank you very much. Next item of business is case 2603. This is Honey Coffee, a conditional use permit within the tenant space at 13 Prominade Court within the Brenwood Prominade Shopping Center. Uh is the applicant or their representative here this evening. Please, if you could come forward, please state your name and tell us a little bit about your application this evening.

Uh hi there. My name's Hay Tang and um I submitted an application to uh open a coffee and matcha shop at 13 Brentwood Prominade. Um uh my wife and I were we run the Honeybee Tea which is the next development over um for about maybe three years now. And um we really like doing business in uh Brentwood and uh saw that there was an opportunity uh to you know to do coffee you know the next plaza over so we decided to you know run with it. Um the existing business it was been vacant used to be a great clips has been vacant for like over a year. So, um I think um I think this will be good uh for that area and we're we're excited to to to get involved in this venture.

Okay. Thank you. We'll go over to staff report, please, Miss Kelly. Yes.

Um as the applicant has indicated, they will be taking up the former Great Clips uh location at 13 Brentwood Prominade. Um they're not making any changes to the exterior of the building or the site. So this is a simple conditional use permit. Um the the site was originally developed in 1997 and this encap was added in 2013 which reduced the overall parking of the entire center by 16 spaces. Um the space is 1,090 square feet and all of the seating is on the inside and there would be three employees at their business shift. Um since they are not making any changes to the exterior of the B exterior of the building or the site, the review was limited to the overall parking. Um in 2012 there was a starking study parking study completed for that encap unit that was being added. Um and it found that the majority of the parking that is within the fields next to target area but there were still in excess of 500 parking spaces. um with the role of all of the at that time there was um uh 1382 marked parking spaces and doing a a roll of the requirement of all the current tenants the parking required for the entire site is 1375. Um, I did reach out to CBB and he did not have a concern since the location is kind of out of the way. Um, and therefore we did not do a updated parking study of the center and therefore we do not have any concerns.

Dang, I assume this is also uh dine in as well as takeaway for the coffee shop. It it it is. Um although I I think mostly it's going to be grab and go. I mean we I put seating in there, but like uh our tea shop, you know, the next plaza over mostly most people just they want to grab and go. I don't know for some reason people don't like to hang out too long. So um you know being on that end cap I think there's always a lot of parking right there. I know prominade BMA prominate has a issue with you know it's always busy but on the end cap it's always a lot of open spaces so I don't think we'll really [clears throat] affect parking and um you know mostly I think it's going to be grab and go um although you know I'd love for it to be super busy like a Starbucks and I don't think that's going to happen but uh

but all service is going to be inside the the store I guess is the other piece I should have asked correct doing car service coming out the car correct Yes. Great. Uh, other questions? Sorry, Miss Kelly. Was that and a staff report? My apologies. Any questions for members of the commission? Very straightforward. Any questions on this petition from members of the public or anyone online? Is there a motion? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. M. Sharing. I move to recommend uh approval of the conditional use permit and site development plans for Honey Coffee at 13 Brentwood Prominade Court subject to conditions and discussions of today's planning and zoning commission meeting.

Motion by Miss Sharing. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Carlin, I believe. Uh roll call vote, please. Chuck Shelton, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Matt Foreman, yes. Carlin, yes. Brian Nolan, yes. Sharing, yes. Marava. Yes. Moran. Yeah. Unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Uh, so that again will be referred as a recommendation will go to the board of alderman for their March meeting and good luck on that. Thank you for your business in in Brenwood. Great. Next item of business is case uh 260006. This is a site development plan for new 9-unit town home development at 8815 M Avenue. Is the applicant or the representative here this evening? Yes, sir.

Again, if you could please state your name and address for the record. tell us a little bit about your proposal this evening. I am Mark Dorine, president of Dorian Engineering. Um, just so everybody's aware, Dorian Engineering for the most part closed down last year. Um, however, there's still some projects we're finishing up. And when I say we, I'm I am Dorian Engineering. So, I'm the only one and I'm here tonight. So, appreciate that. Um, so, uh, Whitney, I should grab the laptop and bring it over. Yeah. Okay. Um,

he has a PowerPoint he'd like to show. Okay. too much. Great. Thank you again. Um so um Ashim Ashim Lamachami and I got to say that correctly I apologize is our leader on this and this is his brother Aaron with us this evening. Uh sheim could not be here today. He has a very significant uh personal family problem.

Understand? Apoll I'm sorry to hear that. No. Okay. But but he would be here because he's very interested and his brother Aaron is part in the um the man the ownership of this development. He's here. So he would like to say a few words before we start. Thank you.

Please. Um good good evening chair member for of planning and joining commission. Uh my name is Arun Lamishani the property owner and applicants for the proposed 9-unit town home development at 8815 Maz Avenue. Um I'll I'll just take few minutes. I want to thank thank city of Brentwood for their time to review this project. Um especially Whitney, we have been going back and forth with the design. Thank you so much. Uh I'm very confident that you all will like our design and we are excited for the next step. Uh from here Mark will take uh to the next step. Thank you all.

Thank you. Thank you. [clears throat]

So our site is located at the uh north northwest corner basically of uh Brentwood Boulevard and MAG. are actually back one parcel from uh from Brentwood Boulevard itself. We're a second tier property here. Um we are in the PD overlay district, plan development overlay district which does allow attached town houses and that's a permitted use and that's why we're here this evening. Um the comprehensive plan is focused on pedestrian pedestrian focus workable areas walkable areas I excuse me. Okay. Um one thing that there's a question in the comprehensive plan but again we working with staff through this is that twotory plus buildings it requests that it has the lower unit being commercial and the upper being upper unit possibly being residential. our case, we have a three-story building and it's all residential. Um, but again, we're second tier from Brentwood Boulevard and and quite honestly, our market analysis says that you would do any commercial there, um, it would not be successful. In addition to us with without it being commercial, it gives us the opportunity to set our buildings back 50 feet from the adjoining residential property to the east and allows us to create a 25- foot landscape buffer on that property line. So, we think those additions are very positive for the city. Um, density, we're allowed 11 units by the straight density calcs. We are proposing nine units and I'll show you them shortly. And, um, the staff report suggests more architectural detail on the front of our building face and imagine. We are in agreement with that and we're happy to work with staff to work that issue out. and I already messed it up. So, here we go. So, this is a picture from MAGE. Okay, that house is no longer there that's

been removed. Okay, again, we have two basically two single family lots here that we're putting together. The lot, it's vacant itself right now. If you'll drive to drive by it. Um, again, this is a picture more from Brentwood Boulevard, actually from the commercial development right in front of us. Um, showing the house that's no longer there. Um, and again the vacant lot, there's a retaining wall that runs along our property line with a fence on top of that. We'll have a discussion more later on, but that fence and retaining wall is on the adjoining property, not ours. Again, another picture from MAG here. The house on the right is gone. Our property line starts about five or six feet from the house on the left.

House is gone already, right? No, it's still there. Is it really? Did you really still there? So, I'm getting a little older. Um, but thank you. So, by the way, the house is still there.

The rest of the stuff I tell you, I hope what you can believe. Uh, again, here's a picture from Brentwood Boulevard. You see the retaining wall and you can see the house that is still there. [laughter] Cool. And again, the retaining wall itself is on the adjoiners property. Uh, this is our site plan. uh north in this situation is straight up. Brentwood Boulevard is to your right and MG is down to on the bottom of the sheet. Um right there we are proposing three buildings with three units each and which gives us a total of nine units. We're proposing a 25 foot wide entrance on MAG at that location. And again that entrance actually is 25 ft from the eastern parcel property line. Oh, west.

Um, we're proposing asphalt pavement for the parking lot and that's correct. I got you. It is the west property line. So, I'm having a difficult evening this evening. So, stay with me. I'm 67. Uh, and in the front we have a 25 foot building setback to match the existing houses on the street itself and the building line setback required along match and uh we have a 14oot setback on what is the front of the buildings. The front of the buildings will be facing Brentwood basically and we have nice architectural package on the front and we'll be showing you that shortly. Um so our buildings itself sit back 50 feet from the west thank you west property line um of where the existing residentials at. And then we have a continuous concrete sidewalk that runs along the eastern property line on our property. And we have a 25 foot heavenly landscape buffer joining the residential property to the west. though the city of Brentwood requires best management practice for storm water control. We've already submitted our plans and have them substantially approved but it's part of your approval too. Um they'll be located up in this area and I'll speak to them shortly a little more a little more detail. Um and again you have the joiner retaining wall and a fence at that location along the eastern property line.

Mr. Jordan, is that your retaining wall and fence though or is that the commercial properties? That's the commercial properties. Okay. There's about it sits about a foot onto their property. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, I thought

Okay. So um and this one I'm gonna need a little help on these screens but uh so just a development data we have a 0.55 acres and our gross building area is uh 6,651 square feet of all the buildings and the gross floor area which is of each building is each building 6600 square feet and all three of them will be 19,953 square feet. Um so our floor area ratio as required is equal to 083 and our again our building coverage 6651 square feet which I I'm have a problem reading that but anyway our site coverage ratio is 45.9% which again uh the parking spaces required I aired on this one here is 11 I'm sorry the required parking spaces is nine and the parking provided is actually 18. We have two parking spaces in the garage. Each unit will have a two-car garage. So, 18 parking spaces underground, not underground, under the building itself. Um MSD requirements. So, MSD has BMP requirements also. However, their requirements would not affect a parcel of this site. Basically, um there's um differential run calculations that you have to do. And if the differential storm runoff, the amount of water runoff that happens after development compared to pre-development is greater than 2 cubic feet of water per second. So a cubic foot 12 in x 12 in x 12 in if two of those would be passing a point two cubic feet. Okay, that would kick in MSG requirement for storm water detention. However, because it's such a small amount of water, um, and that small amount of water would require such a small opening to hold it back, which

would clog up relatively easy. Um, MSD does not require any storm water detention on this project. Okay. Um, and then again, they als MSD also has rain garden requirements, which you're seeing rain gardens, and you know what they are now. However, that's based on the land disturbance of a project. If you disturb more than 1.0 0 acres, then you're required to put water quality, which is a water cleansing product, on your development. And again, this property here is 0.55 acres. So, MSD itself would have no requirements for storm water detention or water quality, which are BMP's best management practices. With that said, the city of Brentwood still requires best management practices. Okay? And those will be handled in um in an area right here in those two red squares. Okay? And what that is, that is what some people would refer to as an old French drain where you dig a hole, you put rock in there, and the voids between the rocks will hold water back, which will um act as detention in this case and will not increase the runoff to the downstream areas because of the development. So even though MSD doesn't require it, city of Brentwood does and we are handling it and our plans have been reviewed already by the city engineer and our our underground storage French drains will be located in that area. You will not see them though. There will be grass above those areas. These are elevations. Um the front elevation of building number one and it's very similar to and three. And again that's face that's actually facing Brentwood Boulevard. So, it's facing the east. Okay. And then you can see the right elevation of the building, which would really be a building, the part you do not see from MAGE. Okay. And then the rear elevation is what you would see if

you were looking from the residential area to the west of us. Okay? And that's set back 50 ft coming off of there. Um, the three units, they go straight up. They have a twocar garage under each one of them. And then the last one is the left elevation, and that's what you'd actually see from MAG. So, we've added the the porch to the side of the end to the end unit on this one here to help with the architectural uh style of the building itself, but we're going to work that over a little bit more and come back with staff a little better, a little more work on that. Okay. Um these are the floor plans. So, up in the top is the first floor plan. Um the top part there, those are the twocar garages, the big empty squares, and that's where we enter from the west on the on the drive there. You enter at grade and you'll have a bedroom downstairs. Okay? And then you'll have a set of stairs running you up to the second floor which will have the living room, the kitchen area. And then on all the units you have are running up to the third floor which will have actually two addition three additional bedrooms upstairs or studies. Okay. Each floor on the first well the first floor is 310 square feet plus the garage. The second floor is 755 square feet. There's a slight overhang on the front part of the building which also gives it some good architectural characteristics. And the third floor is 755 square ft which gives us a total of 1820 square ft of living space. And then the two-car garage is about 400 square feet of additional living space. We the product that we're going to be selling here we anticipate will be desirable to people starting out that want to be in Brentwood want to stay in Brentwood um just married maybe starting a family and we don't know whether they'll stay here a long time but our marketplace is those people 25 to 35 years old with the

stairs we do not anticipate older adults being interested in our product at all but we'll sell them a unit if they want Um landscape plan. Um again the main thing here I think is the landscaping along the res I'm sorry this is now rotated. North is no longer up. North is to the left of our screen. Brentwood Boulevard would be to the top. Match is to the to the right of this drawing here. The main thing is the um heavy landscape buffer that's 25 ft along the west property at the bottom of your screen buffer in the residential zone zoning district to the left there. U we have additional landscaping between the buildings and on the sides of the buildings as shown. Um staff has reviewed this. I think they are satisfied and I can't say it 100% but is that fairly accurate Whitney with the landscape plan? You're pretty close.

U we'll discuss that. Okay. I'll let her I'll let her say that. Okay. And so then again in summary, we're utilizing the existing um plan development zoning overlay. Uh we believe it's an excellent transition from commercial to a residential area. Uh there's 25 landscape foot landscape buffering to the adjoining residential parcel. Um nice homes at a reasonable price for the city of Brentwood. We think it's good that people that grew up in Brentwood have a chance to stay here. Excellent proposal and we think it'll be a good addition to the city. Uh we appreciate your consideration of this project and would be happy to answer any questions that you may have and thank you so much.

Thank you Mr. Dorian and Mr. Lach. Um, we're going to go to staff report and then we'll have some questions for you most likely. Um, Mr. Staff report. Yeah. Before we start the staff report, they do have material samples. If you would like to pass those out, that would be great.

So, we got a shingle section and we got bricks. Um, the vinyl section that's blown up is green. We're not using green. We're actually using the gray one. It's a smaller piece there. So, just on the on the siding, it's it's a gray sighting. Miss Kelly, go ahead. Take it away. We'll multitask here a little bit.

Okay. Thank you. As the applicants have indicated, they are seeking approval of a development of t nine town homes with three units within three buildings. Um the property is zoned plan development overlay district and it is within the Brentwood Boulevard character area of the comprehensive plan which encourages creating a pedestrianfriendly mixeduse and walkable compact town center area. Um and buildings are to be at or near the sidewalk and front property line except corner locations to accommodate line of sight near the intersection. Uh furthermore, buildings over two stories in the town center should be mixed use with commercial on the ground floor and office and multif family residentials above. Um as the applicant has indicated, the plan development overlay does allow as a permitted use uh town homes and single family homes and multif family dwell homes as well.

So we just have site plan in front of us.

Yes. So we are here for the site development plan. Um the subject property is non-conforming in in that it is under an acre. Um however residential use comprises of 80% to 100%. U the total property land use is limited to 20 units per acre. Therefore at 0.55 acres this would allow up to 11 units. Um and they are proposing nine. Um with a maximum site coverage of 45.9%. Um the building is set back 25 ft with no front parking in the front and that is consistent with both the B single family residential district next door and the plan development o overlay district requirement. Um the side and rear yard setbacks are 10 feet. However, where adjacent to a residential zoning district as we have here, the minimum is um 50 feet set back with 25 ft of such landscape sideyard where adjacent to the residential is landscaped. You can then have the parking or the drive access within the next 25 foot and the building is at 50 feet and they are consistently being presented. Y

yeah. Um and so overall they are consistent with that. The building setback is also consistent with the section 41380 that requires that any building over two and a half stories or 35 ft in height or up to four stories have a m set back at least 50 feet of the building set back between the building and any single family district. So they are also meeting with that requirement. Um the overall height of the building is 37.95 ft. Um largely the discussion is and you're looking at the material would be on the architectural design. Um and under the zoning code section 41380 it does say the use of metal sighting is prohibited and um where it is visible from Manchester Road, Brentwood Boulevard, Eager Road or Hanley Road. um and that a butts a property that is zoned or used for residential purposes and they are not proposing any the use of the materials is residential in character. Um the mechanical equipment is with between the buildings so there and at the ground floor so it would not be on the roof. So therefore it does not provide any require any screening. um where there is commercial adjacent to residential, we do require a six-foot solid fence and they are proposing that they initially proposed it in tan. They submitted and was updated in your packet that changed that to a gray to be more consistent with the colors of the materials. So that is also for your review. Um, and reviewing the residential design guidelines, it does talk about that new homes, and I looked at the residential design guidelines for this instance because of the character of the development, but it does talk about new

homes should be oriented in the same way um as most of the homes on the street or block. Um while majority of the homes are faced to the um east they have tried to provide some front element along match. Um however I felt that that could be greater enhanced if that is the wish of the board that should be a discussion that you can have with the applicant. Um, and the design guidelines also recommend that any transitions between the street facing or side and rear facing or to use the same materials with the majority of the front is where the that's facing the side. Actually, South Brentwood Boulevard has the majority of the architectural features. So, that is up for y'all's review as well. Andy Frankie provided a review of the landscape plan that was not available by the time of the staff report on Friday, but he has updated that and I included in the packet. So, he is here to address those if you would like to hear from him.

We would like to hear from you, Mr. Frankie.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I'm Andrew Frankie. I'm a landscape architect with Planning Design Studio. We're the city's on call landscape architect. Uh we reviewed this plan. There were two submitts. Uh you guys probably have in front of you the first letter. Um there's a second letter dated February 9th. Do you have that one in front of you as well? Okay. Uh there's been a few changes after that and I'll go through those. So uh uh we usually review kind of general site plan issues and then we go into the landscape plan. There were a couple of things that we noted on the general site plan. The first was the lighting plan. There was no lighting plan submitted and we're always concerned about lighting lighting spillover. Uh the petitioner has submitted that plan. We reviewed it and it looks like it's going to comply so we shouldn't have any issues with lighting. Uh site proof fence Whitney talked about they submitted a tan. Now we're uh they're resubmitting gray which will be more consistent with the building. Um the third item with regard to the site plan is the fence. And this fence is a little bit tricky on this one because the fence along the east property line, half of it is wood and the other half of it is chain link. And the chain link part of it is actually cast into the top of the wall. And as uh Mr. Doring has said, the wall and I'm I'm not exactly sure on the ownership of this. Uh, I imagine the cast and place concrete wall is owned by the adjacent property owner, but I'm not sure about the fence on that's actually behind the segmental retaining wall. So, uh, we probably ought to have some discussion about that. Uh our point was the petitioner is proposing one consistent fence along that property line, which is great, but it it's going to be located behind at least the con the cast in place concrete wall. What we don't want is a chain link fence right next to a brand new fence. It just looks doesn't look real good. So, we probably need a little bit of clarification from the petitioner on how

that's going to be resolved. Uh landscape-wise, uh the petitioner has addressed most of our issues. We have one issue that's still unresolved as of right now, and that's the street trees along MGE. Uh they originally proposed uh maple trees. We were concerned with that for two reasons. Uh and basically one interference with the overhead electric line. We asked them to resubmit. They resubmitted columner horn beams. The issue with colmer horn beams is it's close to the wires, not directly underneath, but we still felt the width of them might conflict. So, we've asked them to come back with an additional uh a resum middle on that plant material. It's kind of easy to brush this stuff off and say, well, it's kind of away. They're young trees, but we're we're thinking longer term. I've seen way too many trees that look good the day you planted it, but in 20 years, it's a real problem. They shave it off, it looks bad, and everything else. So, we want to make sure we get the right uh smaller tree uh in that location. It's a little bit tricky because if you get a smaller tree, the branches might be in the way uh of the sidewalk. So, maybe the solution is smaller tree, but you push it back a little bit so that you don't have interference along the sidewalk. So, that's the kind of the gist of our review if anybody has any questions.

There irrigation going on along that fence line, Mr. Frankie? Do you know? Uh there's irrigation. I don't know if it's uh directly along the fence line, but there's irrigation throughout the the project. Uh the plans that were submitted don't show the spray uh alignment. So, we would assume that we wouldn't be the petitioner wouldn't be irrigating over the fence line. It might hit the fence, but typically irrigation designers are pretty good about not irrigating a plastic fence, per se. Hopefully. Um if if the if the commission is so inclined, we could ask for additional detail on actually the the the spray pattern on those and we could review it if that's an issue.

My concern would simply be it is looks like a robust um landscape plan there and I understand the intent. Uh I just want to make sure it doesn't die. Uh they do have irrigation which is good and they're showing it on the planting plan. They're not they're not um relying on uh faucet and hoses which is really good news especially Yeah. Because this looks like a very nice landscape. uh especially the buffer on the west side. Any qu So we don't have to have people popping up and down all the time. Any questions for Mr. Frankie? Mr. Carlin, I'm just not sure what the nature of the plantings along the um western edge are.

There there are a variety of of of shrubs. I'll kind of read some of them off. Uh the good thing is we've got some evergreens in there and some deciduous so that when all the leaves drop, there'll still be some screening. Uh they have uh uh some Native American cherries. They've got American holls, uh, Norway spruce. Uh, they're also leaving some existing trees in there, um, green giant arborite, which is probably everybody's favorite for screening neighbors. They don't want to see everybody, they look like just green lollipops all the time, uh, through there. Uh, so there's kind of a mix of both uh, in in that zone. Uh, mostly trees, not very many shrubs.

Mostly trees, not very many shrubs. So So about what height we thinking there they would be the trees? Pardon me. What height do we think they'd get to in terms of uh they they'll vary between 20 to 35 ft I think in that area. Thanks. Sure, Mr. Moran. My question was along the same lines. Uh so how many mature trees are actually going to be lost from

um they did not provide a count of how many trees are going to be lost. has a pretty significant tree mass in there, but there's uh some really nice oak trees that they're proposing to to to save as part of that process, but um I didn't do a count, so I can't answer that without going back out. Okay, no, that's not a problem. Do we think there'll be any kind of like shade for like the people who are to the west of this new building with a 30-foot structure, threetory structure who previously will have been getting fairly, you know, direct sunlight is now going to be quite a bit of shade, right? Is that going to create an impact? Do we think? I mean, I don't know if that's within your scope, right? But is there gonna be a change in the

Yes, there will be a change. It's a two and a half story building. Yeah. Yeah. And it's and so as the sun moves along that property, um there'll be some shade, but there's it's not going to cast a shadow directly from the, you know, into the west. It's going to be kind of more coming around the south uh side of it. Okay. Uh if you wanted to ask a petitioner for a shade study, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to do that. Actually, I'm speaking for them, but if if you want to see it, yeah, it's certainly a reasonable request, I would think. Yeah. And and when you said the lighting was compliant, that's all well and good, right? But again, lights 30 feet up.

No, my understanding is that the lights are attached to the building, so they're going to cast out. They're not going to be We don't have parking lot poles in this particular instance. So, they're kind of casting out from the uh from the building itself. Okay. So, the neighbors to the west on. It's not going to look like Vegas or anything like that for them. I don't think it'll look like Vegas. And I think that are on the west side the um the additional landscaping should screen uh screen that eventually.

Uh as far as glare, glare is a really hard thing to uh evaluate just looking at a cut sheet or something like that. Glare is always an issue and I know there's the ordinance kind of talks about anti-glare um kind of conditions or characteristics. If we wanted to ask for additional information regarding glare, I imagine we'd have to do that and see what the manufacturer provides because you you're right, you don't want it to just shoot right into people's windows directly. The planting will help. It'll help more when it matures, but it's probably something if we want to look at as well. But when they submit photometrics, we kind of look at the numbers on the ground and and it was zero on most of the sides. It was 0.1 of a foot candle on the uh east side at the parking lot, but there'll be a fence there as well. And putting a little bit more part light on an edge of a parking lot is probably not a bad thing issue, right?

Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Frankie. Miss Sharing. Um, yes. I had a question on the west rear elevation. It's showing that there's like a a balcony or a outside area over the garage doors. Is there going to be lighting out there? There's none depicted in the drawings, but I would be concerned how that light it shows on the rear elevation, not on the rendering. [clears throat] So, will that light you're in staff report if you go to the elevations? Oh, yeah. Okay. I see. And they're about I measured 16 feet 8 offgrade off the backside.

Yeah. If you look at page six of eight of the staff report, um, if you can hit the button so I can Yeah, I got it. I got it. Got it. Okay.

Okay. Do we think that the landscaping will block that light from casting over into the residential behind? uh according to the foot candle diagram, it should not be putting light on the ground. Whether they'll see the light on the building, they most likely will until that planting matures because they're not going to plant, you know, trees are going to be 8t tall or something. So, this is definitely going to go over it. Will will you see light from those fixtures? Yes. Will it be a glare situation? I can't answer that. Thank you.

Other questions for Mr. Frankie? Thank you, Mr. Frankie. You're welcome. How about are you taking questions?

We will. Not for the landscape architect, though. Thank you. All right. Um, Mr. Kelly, please. So, um just to get back to the um lighting, it is a residential kind of character lighting that is um adjacent to each side of the garage door, the balcony entrance, and the front entrance at the door. Um, the applicants did submit a lighting spec for the outdoor. Uh, that does show that it would be downcast. Um, therefore, I did not have a concern with that. Um, that is something that the commission would like to provide direction on. They should. I um

but it sounds like it's again from the uh lighting study that was done and from the fixtures that they're using that has been addressed. It sounds like from staff. Okay. Um however, I did believe I heard that the shade study may be something uh since that is a significant change. All right. Um we obviously may have some more questions and I know we have more fans than usual. So we will have some questions for members of the public and we'll get to that in just a second. Please, Miss Kelly.

Yes. Just to um outline the conditions that are recommended um do include that all landscaping shall be permanently maintained. So um that is a requirement of the city for any site development plan. Um and then I would also add that the storm water regulations that would be further reviewed as part of any building permit. It does require storm water and field development permit for this. Yeah. All right. Any other questions from the commission? We will turn over to the public for staff. Mr.

A couple, please, if you don't mind, for Miss Kelly, uh, when there's like plantings on the west side for there's nine different owners, who's accountable for keeping the vegetation in decent shape. The applicants haven't indicated whether this is going to go to condo development or if they will keep it as an apartment. Um, but it would be if they do go to condo development, that would require review as condo plat and we would require that all landscaping be addressed as part of um the ownership or condo association declaration.

Okay, thank you. And did this warrant a traffic study? No, it did not. I did check with the traffic engineer and they are providing the code requires two parking spaces per single family residential or multif family residential under a certain number. So they are providing the required parking sites. Where do we think visitors to these nine places are going to park? Well, the drive aisle is pretty wide at 25 ft. Um there is also the um um commercial building to the um to the east um if they want to look at a parking lot.

I know the studio is that parking lot's full all the time now. I'm just telling you I live on the street so that is not a viable option. That doesn't sound like a plan. So, but that is not a requirement that they provide for the visitors. There is always on street parking. Any single family or um townhouse development is only is required to provide two parking spaces. Do those houses have big driveways and garages and stuff or do most of the residents already park on the street? I believe most of the residents already park on the street. Right. Exactly. So, there's going to be a whole lot of room for guests, right? I I don't know that. Okay. I I actually have the same question as Mr. Moore.

And I I think that's a fair question. The other side though is I would say is they're providing parking for the residents. So, the only one will be seeking parking is guests, which are less regular use than the people who are in the houses. Right. And I guess you know the thing I I do want to mention and especially when public comment is this is a permitted use. We have to factor that in. This is something that we've decided is within the rules of the zone. Um so again what we're looking at is site plan. You have a remmit though to look out for safety 100%. 100%. I'm sorry Mr. Chim we're still on the landscaping right? We're not doing general questions yet. Is that general questions? General questions. Sorry. Okay.

General questions. Um so I have several as might be imagined. um one simple one relative to the the light fixture that was shown which by the way I've used quite like it tech lighting um thumbs up but it def it differs in character from what's shown in the in the in in the drawings right so in the drawings um you know Whitney's mentioned several times that while it's sort of being reviewed under commercial you know it's also a residential character of a project um the lighting shown has a more you know residential character to it um the one that we've both used this is kind of it's relatively industrial, you know. Um, so I I question that as a consistent, you know, idea for the design, frankly. Um, and it would actually cause me to have other questions about the design then and where it's headed. So, another question I have then is are we I heard someone say we're voting on the the site proposal and are we also voting on the building design tonight as well or is it just the site? Okay. So, the whole package. Okay. Therefore, there's other questions. Um

I I will note one thing which is there is a very real likelihood that site plan subcommittee may be appropriate for this. Um so I want to make sure just for all of us that we do be conscious of time because we will have that and I want to make sure we get

so then I can I can maybe raise some questions but we don't have to necessarily answer them. So um understanding you know um myself and Matt Mr. Foreman also serve on the architectural review board um which is at the moment primarily but is limited by code to residential development. This is somewhere in the middle. So, um, you know, there there's keeping it short. Thank you. Um, you know, clearly the the the front of the building is facing east. Um, I first of all, I want to commend you on the presentation. It was very clear. It was very it's comprehensive. I So, you made everything that I really appreciate that. That makes it a lot easier for us. So, thank you. Um, I appreciate that the rules have been followed. the 25 foot landscape buffer, the 50- foot, you know, um I I don't think it's helping in this case. I think it's a rule, but the the 14 foot um front alley thing to me is is is soundly unconvincing as as a as a urban solution, right? Um so I apologize for that. That's just that's an architectural feeling that I have. I'm not sure you had much choice, you know, but um it's it's it's a little strange that it faces the back of that prop that commercial property. I don't think it's going to work as well as we might be thinking it might. Um but but that might just be someone else's concern. Frankly, I am worried about the MGE elevation. I don't think the MAG elevation, you know, by my understanding that's the front of the building, right? Like I appreciate that you're doing efforts to the the long access of the building on the east side, which will be seen from Brentwood and I appreciate that, but that's not the front of the building. The front of the building is on MGE. And so I think any the elevation I think there's a second set of elevations that we're looking at and they clearly take some distance from the first set of elevations but I don't think that they're there. I would not vote yes with what I'm seeing tonight. Um it isn't enough. Um and then again facing the the west side which you know in a lot of the

residential development we see you know you turn this side of the building and it kind of gets ignored and sometimes we just have to live with that. I feel some more detail would be appropriate there as well. Um, I appreciate the the quality garage door you're showing, the lighting I just discussed. Um, but it's essentially a very large three-story sea of siding and I think something should be done to address that. Um, so those are thoughts. We can maybe take it further in the other meeting. Thank you, Mr. Carlin. Other again, general questions for staff or for the applicant from the commission. And I don't mean to cut off debate. I just want to note that likely there will be more opportunities. Mr. for it given that we're going likely to

it's what I'm hearing

review which I'm supportive of the two partially to Mr. Carllin's point, the two other drawings that I think could be very informative for this conversation would be an actual full east and west elevation. There's somewhere between five and eight feet of grade going up on the site. So, these three buildings will step up a hill. Also, an east west section elevation because like I said, I on the way here went and measured it. the existing that's still there woodframe house is 27 feet tall. This one we're looking at 38 at the peak but around

um Mr. Can I I if we get a section east west looking north of the existing house the red brick to remain your building the three-foot drop and the 12 to 14 foot yoga studio in context. I think that will help us understand the overall composition of what they're proposing. And I think you just answered the question I was going to ask because we've had so many discussions in this room about what we mean by elevations. And what I think I heard you say was an elevation from someone standing in one of these locations. What will they see? Yes. Rather than just a clean elevation of the project.

May or may not have doodled, but we'll get sight plan. Okay. Um Mr. Dorian, did that make sense to you of what we were talking about with that? So, someone standing maybe at the edge of Brentwood Boulevard looking towards our site and showing a size of a person standing somewhere on the parking lot. So, parking lot up against their building.

So, if you're two things, perspective, elevation. If they're taking a perspective view from maybe the south east corner or the Yeah. Right at south side of Mge at Brentwood Boulevard looking toward the site and a perspective three-dimensional would be informative. But at the very least a section elevation, a true elevation looking north that we can judge relative heights including the grade drop of about three feet between your site and the yoga studio that existing concrete walls about three feet tall. Repeat it because we'll talk after Perfect. I'll take that.

All right. Anything else, Mr. Foreman? I would I encourage site plan review.

I getting that vibe. Other members of the commission, we have numerous members of the public here this evening. Is anyone wish to address the commission on this? Just so I can let you know what we're talking about since not all of you may be regular viewers. site plan subcommittee is an opportunity for us to discuss this in between our formal public meetings in greater detail with the applicant so that we can get more information um such as additional renderings and elevations and things like that. Um so that is most likely what the recommendation will be of the members of the commission. Um we have an alderman with us this evening. Uh could you please state your name for the record and let us know what you'd like to to know. Steve Lock [snorts] Miller, a resident

resident this evening

of 8831 match. It's good to hear that this is going to site plan. I think a lot of the neighbors have concerns due to the building height compared to the other homes along that and frankly the sidefacing match needs a lot of work. It does not blend into the neighborhood whatsoever. um the concerns about parking. I know they're meeting their guidelines and exceeding them, but these is this is all uh private, you know, garage parking. Where do visitors go? MAG is a one is a street that only has parking on one side. Directly across from this building is a business that takes up parking. [clears throat] So, they would have to line one side of the street and our residents use that pretty heavily. Um you know, the other concern is density here. Um there's a lot of building on little land. Um um and with that density, I'd kind of like to hear from our fire department whether they would have proper access in the event of an emergency to be able to get into the way these buildings are oriented if there would be a fire or some type of EMS requirement. So those are some of the concerns and uh I'm sure I and my residents will be at the site plan. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lock Miller. other members of the public wish to address the commission on this. Um, and I should have noted and I apologize because it's in my notes, but please do limit your comments to three minutes.

Okay. Sure. Uh, my name is Suzanne Woodard. I'm the owner of 2525 South Brentwood, which is the uh building behind the site. So, it's that building and then the parking lot is right behind it. Our building is the corner of the site and then the parking lot. So, my concern and questions um are the north side, which really hasn't been addressed. I haven't heard the um the fencing what sort of buffer will be between their property and our property. The site plan indicates that there might be some landscaping, but it's not clear. And then it also looks like there might be some sort of um air conditioning units. That was kind of glossed over a little bit because it said it was in between the buildings. Um so, um I have questions on that. Um those were my main questions. Fencing, buffer, landscaping. Um, I understand based on um what M. Kelly said that it's a 10-foot setback. So, you know, we do have some um definite questions about that part of the project.

Thank you.

And I do I under recall correctly, Miss Kelly? So, the air conditioning is ground air conditioning. It is not screened because it is residential grade and that's not a requirement of code for us. The zoning code does say allow for detached accessory structures including mechanical equipment to go to five feet from the rear property line and they have indicated that this would be more than 5t from the rear property line. Also under the plan development overlay district, the 10 foot setback can be adjusted where adjacent to existing PD overlay district um by the site plan approval. Um, so yeah,

maybe some uh for maybe something to have a conversation about in uh subcommittee of whether screening would be uh something the applicant would consider for the one unit, one set of units that's basically facing another property rather than just between your own properties. So something I would also add that we have sat down with the fire department to review the plans and they did not have any concerns. Okay. With 25 foot they're able to get back there. Is there Yeah. With the adoption of the 2024 codes, the town houses will be required to be sprinkled um to provide additional fire suppression. Yeah, good to know. Any other question? Thank you.

Hello. Uh my name is Sean Lee. I'm also with 2525 South Brentwood Boulevard. Uh there was one additional uh comment with um disturbance um and potential uh tree removal at the uh northwestern side. Uh there is a significant grade difference between our property and theirs. Uh wondering if there's any uh discussion of a retaining wall. Um also it's my understanding that in that area there is a sinkhole. So wondering if this kind of disturbance is going to cause some difference in the water um uh management of that area specifically. So

on the northwest corner of the property retirement there does there does uh we have a much in some areas we have um seven eight feet of difference um and so just kind of wondering if that's been addressed with this. It's it's not clear from the drawing. Thank you, Miss Kelly. We'll take a look at that as well. Yeah, we um the engineer can address that, but the act sinkhole is actually just west of this property um from what they have indicated. Um but sir, would Mr. Dorne, would you like to address that?

Yes, I apologize. Um we don't need a retaining wall at the northwest corner of our property. Um, and we do have a 10 foot set back in the building to the north of us actually sits right close to the building line in the same residential zoning is my understanding. Uh, the sinkhole actually sets um on the residential parcel to our west which is the bottom of the screen and it's significantly onto that property. It's not onto our property. What we did in our design is um we tried to limit the amount of water that went to the sinkhole and actually we reduce the amount of water that runs through that sinkhole when we're completed with this product project that goes there today which is a good thing. Okay. Um our most half of our lot used to go that way. Now we're catching it on our parking lot curb and we're bringing it down to M Avenue to the storm source system that runs to the east across Brentwood Boulevard. So, it's an improvement to the sinkhole situation to the west of our property.

So, the grading will be north to south for that parking strip or the driveway strip there. Yes, sir. Thank you. Other members of the public, please.

Hi, my name is Katherine Wang, HW AG, and I live on M Avenue. I'm a so my my concern as I think I talked to some of my neighbors was also that if I step out of my house and see look at this the this new structure and you know um while I think it's good overall for the city um for the residents of M Avenue when you step out the front of the structure does not face the M Avenue residence that the street. So you're you you know you're you're looking at not only potentially a difference in elevation um between the existing houses and the the top of these uh planned town houses. But um the concern is also the construction um when they actually perform the building um you know where are they going to park? Are they gonna jam up the street? I mean, you know, where are the workers actually going to um bring in all the materials and park? Because the only place they can park is at one side of M Avenue. And how long is this going to last? A year or more? I mean, so these are some of the concerns. the elevation, the noise, the construction period. Um, I know it's uh, you know, we said it's for young families, but what are are these considered luxury apartments? And, you know, you address the issue of condos. I mean, what what is the rental going to be like? Is it going to be in line with say Brentwood Forest condominiums or is

it going to be much higher than that? So, these are just some of the concerns in addition to the ones that Steve mentioned. Thank you, Miss Mike. Any other members of the public? Sorry. Please.

Sorry. Real quickly, what I didn't explain, these will be condominiums. Okay? So, they'll be fee simple. They won't be lots. So, there'll be an association um and bylaws when the condominium plat is ran through the city. And the um maintenance of all exterior property will be borne by um the HOA association which means the people that live there give that um and I had one other thing that Miss Swang just brought up there. I was going to address um oh I'm sorry and the pricing on this is we we envision these starting at $550,000. Okay. So just for your information. Thank you.

Any other members of the public wishing to address the commission? I'm sorry. Could you please address like the during the construction period the place and where where you know all the workers are going to be parking and bringing in material etc. If you know that Mr. Doran so I think the city will require us to park on site have our construction stuff stored on site. We haven't done that yet but that's what the city should require us. Um we will make noise during the day and you have as many construction there are limits to that and you basically build it in series rather than trying to do it all at once. Actually um right now that we're trying to do all three at once. Okay.

Okay. And I did want to bring that up to you too for the thing. But that that is subject to change too. Okay. But right now we'd like to build all three at once. We think we can get them all built at the same time and be done and out of there and sell them. So thank you. Um, I will just add the code requires that construction hours on Monday through Friday is 7 am to 6 pm. Um, on Saturday it's 10:00 a.m. to 4 pm and no work from the ex that is audible from the exteriors to be done on Sunday without the express permission of the director of planning and development.

Thank you, Miss Kelly. Other comments from the public, please. Hi, I'm Anne Croy and I live at 8834 MAGE. Um, I think one of my concerns would be have there been any traffic studies done because the intersection at MAGE and Brentwood is already one to be um avoided and you're adding uh we're already looking at people cutting through on MGE that want to avoid the Manchester Brentwood um intersection. So, uh just wondering if any traffic studies have been done. My understanding from staff was that no, there was reviewed by the traffic engineer, but no full study was needed because of the scope of the project. Is that correct, Miss Kelly? Did I summarize that?

Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other members of the public? Anyone online? What is the mood of the commission? Oh, sorry. Please.

Sorry if I missed you. That's okay. I was kind of late in saying it. So, Faith Beckerman, I live at 8823 MG Avenue. Um, you know, that property over there is kind of always been a little, you know, what's underneath there and all that. Is that land stable enough to have a piece of property this large on there? Um, and then they were showing the the brick or whatever. We're all brick houses. I mean, red brick. So, um, that really wouldn't fit in with what they're looking at. So, I was just wondering if that's really stable back there enough to hold all that once they start going at it. So,

I believe that's the engineering study that's been done has uh would would allow for that, but I will leave that up to the city and the construction plan to determine. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Uh, Mr. Darian, I have a question. Uh, on the development plan, I noticed both buried electrical service to the building as well as reference to the overhead service that's existing. Been any discussion about burying those lines between long property line?

No. Um, all our all our service lines will be underground. Um, we have no intent to bury them along the eastern property line. We don't really have space, nor we do have the finances to bury them. They're fairly significant wires like you indicated. Looking at a photograph, it is significant. Something that uh I needed to bring up. I appreciate it. Anything else? All right. Um, what is the will of commission? It sounds like there is interest in carrying this over to site plan subcommittee. I think that would be wise. There's enough issues to to cover. Is there a motion?

I would move to um Oh, I don't know what to say. I would move to carry this over to a site plan subcommittee meeting, the next one available, which would be Miss Kelly or sorry, Jessica, do you know when's the next date? February 25th. November February 25th. Oh, it would not be November. February 25th

at 6 pm. if folks could check their calendars um to make sure that we actually can have significant Chairman, I'm traveling, but I [clears throat] do virtual meetings all day long. I can call in if you set up a Zoom. Think we could probably manage that. Does the boardroom have the ability to do that? Sorry. Can I address this?

We've got significant issues, personal shows going on at this point. That might be a little quick for us to make. Sure. Okay. So, we'd appreciate maybe we could push it off a little further actually. Okay. Well, then the next opportunity would be basically next public session, next public meeting. March 11th. March 11th. I I think that all things considered from our perspective that probably be better. Okay. Understandable. Thank you. Let me just ask is that that would be another meeting just like this one. Correct. Yeah.

So I I think that the site plan subcommittee is probably a better forum to do that kind of discussion. It's going to get it's going to get detailed. Um I can tell you for sure it's going to get detailed. Um so and I'm seeing some nodding. So I understand that pushes it back even further and I I respect the challenges you're facing with, you know, personal issues. Um but I I don't know that the open session is maybe the best place to have those discussions. If the next site plan is the one, I think it should be that one. March 25th.

Uh understand I think that perhaps what normally is practice is that there will be more conversation between the staff and the applicant for any of the other issues that may be outstanding so that we can at least touch base on this at our next regular meeting and see if there's been any changes that might I expect that we to your point we still may need to be going into site plan subreview or subcommittee, excuse me. Um but at least see what can be done in that month. Yeah. As long as we understand just as long as understood that I think we probably will end up doing that. So yeah. So uh you had a motion. I think we changed motion. Can you Yeah. Sorry. Let's go back. Uh I would move to carry this over to the next regular meeting which is what you're suggesting. March 11th. March 11th. March 11th. Yeah.

Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Moore. Uh think that we actually will do a vote. Roll call vote on this one. Sorry. Okay. Jack Shelton, yes. Jeff Moore, yes. Matt Borman, yes. Carlin, yes. Brian Nolan, yes. Sharing, yes. Mark Vza, yes. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Appreciate the input tonight on this as well. And as folks again, just to recap, this will be carried over to our next public session in a month. Um, and then there may be further discussion at that point. So, thank you very much for the the presentation this evening. Thank you.

All right. Our next item of business is the aldermanic report. Uh, seeing no alderman, I don't believe Well, seeing no alderman, who was here for an alderman? He was hiding. Look at him. There's two. If he's here as a resident this evening, I see no alderman then. Well, there's there is another one over here. He's hid. That's right. Yeah. Director's report. Um, yes. So, our meeting, next meeting is March 11th. Um, we do have three other projects that have come in. We might have a couple of text amendments as well. Um, so please mark your calendars and let us know you're available and please RSVP.

Yes. Early. All right. Anything else, Miss Kelly? That's it. Uh, only one thing for the good of the order. Uh, which I thought it was a little earlier. It turns out it is May. In May, we will take nominations for uh officers for the commission and we vote in June. Miss Builderback's not here to remind me. So, thank you, Jessica, for looking it up and finding out when it was. I thought it was early in the year. I was wrong. Uh any other items of business? With that, we stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody.